New evidence on the importance of the renin???angiotensin system in the treatment of higher-risk patients with hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the drug treatment of hypertension in the light of recent trials. beta-Blockers and diuretics clearly reduce mortality, strokes, and coronary heart disease (CHD) in hypertension. Recent trials assessed whether newer agents that block the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, or calcium blockers, offer any additional advantage, or have benefits in high-risk individuals with conventionally 'normal' blood pressure. The recent ALLHAT study claimed no differences in CHD or mortality when chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril were compared. However, the decrease in blood pressure was not the same with the three agents, and a substantial proportion of patients enrolled did not have clinical disease. In contrast, the LIFE study (comparing losartan and a beta-blocker) and the ANBP-2 study [comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition and a diuretic] reduced blood pressure similarly, yet demonstrated benefits in favour of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors. Other trials indicated similar advantages of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Among high-risk patients with initial blood pressure in the 'normal' range, ACE inhibitors significantly reduce clinical events (mortality, strokes, and myocardial infarction), despite modest decreases in blood pressure, suggesting that additional mechanisms are responsible. Recent results of the Prospective Studies Collaboration show lower risk, even in the normal blood pressure range; high-risk patients will benefit further from ACE inhibitors and ARBs (and beta-blockers after myocardial infarction). Data for other blood pressure decreasing agents are unavailable in such populations. We conclude that blood pressure decreasing per se is of clinical benefit, but drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system offer additional advantages. Drug choice is best determined by the patient's clinical condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".